"According to a recent report by our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
The author claims that despite the availablity of the good quality movies the view count of these movies has decreased the past year. The author states lack of advertising as the reason for the low amount of attendees. Despite getting a positive rating from the critics the movies have failed to appeal to the general public.
However the author fails to look over a number of flaws in his argument. It could be possible that this year people have generally not inclined to watch movies at all. Perhaps they are more attracted to TV shows or some other entertainment media. Hence allocating a greater share of their budget on advertising would not make any difference. Therefore the movie departement can carry out surveys to find out what the general public is actually inclined to watching as far as their entertainment media is concerned.
Another reason could be that people never cared about the reviews given by movie reviewers. They were never concerned whether a movie received a positive rating or not. Generally people are more likely to watch a movie if anyone in their friend circle recommends it to them. Perhaps inspite of securing positive reviews from the critics, the movie was not good enough to be recommended by someone from the general public. So its not much of a fault of the marketing department but actually its actually the other departments involved in the production of the movie that are lacking and the effect of increasing the budget of advertising would be negligible.
With the advent of internet, the people are highly likely to know about a newly released movie even if moderate effort is put into its advertising. So, the argument that the reviews are not reaching enough of the propspective viewers is highly unreasonable. Instead, it could be that the marketing material being used for the promotions of these movies is not up to par for the job. The marketing material being produced is perhaps failing to capture and attract the prospective viewers. So if the same quality of advertising is done but in larger quantity, it would not make any difference either to number of people attending the movies.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 16 | view |
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | Mizanur_Rahman | 50 | view |
| 2023-02-14 | tedyang777 | 60 | view |
| 2022-11-13 | barath002 | 58 | view |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 363 350
No. of Characters: 1753 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.365 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.829 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.599 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.858 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.302 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 311, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...the movies have failed to appeal to the general public. However the author fails to look ove...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...iled to appeal to the general public. However the author fails to look over a number ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 248, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...hows or some other entertainment media. Hence allocating a greater share of their bud...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 343, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ertising would not make any difference. Therefore the movie departement can carry out sur...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 418, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... carry out surveys to find out what the general public is actually inclined to watching as far...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 406, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...h to be recommended by someone from the general public. So its not much of a fault of the mark...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 490, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...f the marketing department but actually its actually the other departments involved...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, hence, however, if, look, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1786.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 363.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92011019284 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65811814238 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501377410468 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.9211027458 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2222222222 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1666666667 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284556401604 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0866200708178 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564318035417 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17596577524 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0503172607174 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.